A World without Religion?

[Bradski]

Amusing but false!

Do you deny that there has to be a modicum of law and order in any civilised society?

You say it’s false but then prove it’s true. You are asking a question that doesn’t relate to anything I have said, would say or will say at any point in the future.

 

[tonyrey]

When it comes down to it everyone has a god. An atheist society would end up with the state as the god. If God doesn’t set your principles, then the state will.

Everyone has an overriding priority, selfish or unselfish:

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

goodreads.com/quotes/100888-because-here-s-something-else-that-s-weird-but-true-in-the

 

[tonyrey]

You say it’s false but then prove it’s true. You are asking a question that doesn’t relate to anything I have said, would say or will say at any point in the future.

You are the one who has made two allegations:

Tony, you spend too much time answering questions that nobody has asked and asking questions that nobody is interested in answering.

The onus is on you to substantiate your assertions. Otherwise they are gratuitous and worthless - and discourteous into the bargain…

 

[Bradski]

Well, if no-one answers your question above, then at least one of my assertions is correct.

 

[jimmy]

Who told you that, Jim?

Reality told me that. It doesn’t take much to realize it. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, the state is the god. They will set the principles you live by and then they will judge you on them. The law was made for the vicious. Religious people have principles and a concept of virtue to live by.

 

[jimmy]

Tony, you spend too much time answering questions that nobody has asked and asking questions that nobody is interested in answering.

That is a problem though. Just because no one is interested in answering doesn’t mean it isn’t a relevant question. That is simply a failure to engage in the argument.

 

[Bradski]

Ok. I’ll wait here while you engage with Tony. Respond to whatever question he might have asked as you see fit.

 

[jimmy]

Ok. I’ll wait here while you engage with Tony. Respond to whatever question he might have asked as you see fit.

Why would I do that? I am not an atheist, and I am not trying to take both sides of the discussion. Besides i am not even sure what question you don’t feel like answering.

 

[Bradski]

Besides i am not even sure what question you don’t feel like answering.

Then that would make two of us.

 

[PRmerger]

There has to be a modicum of law and order in any civilised society, Brad. The alternative is a “state” like Somalia…

Indeed.

 

[alchemist3]

I think these items should put the wild speculations of Flynn to rest. Eve came from Adam, and God created her soul just like he did Adam’s and from these two the whole human race has descended, bottle necks or no!!!

Linus2nd

However this again makes no sense and it necessitates a literalist reading of the Story in all aspects. How can a woman ever come from a man? Have you ever witnessed this is nature? If Eve did come from Adam, it would have to have occurred through Adam having sexual relations with some non-human type primate or other species of human (non souled) and that animal giving birth to Eve. Then Adam would have to commit incest in order to make Eve his wife and bear children with him. Yuck, maybe I just unintentionally discovered what the true original sin was!!!
So either Adam came first and Eve came second, but through another species of homo erectus, Or Eve is a direct descendant of Adam, the first man, who created the first woman as woman are usually created.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

but when it comes down to it, the state is the god. They will set the principles you live by and then they will judge you on them.

That seems like an extremely fluid usage of the word “god.”

 

[PRmerger]

That seems like an extremely fluid usage of the word “god.”

All it means from what I understand, is the state becomes the authority. The one who makes the rules to which we must defer. The one who answers to no one else.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

All it means from what I understand, is the state becomes the authority. The one who makes the rules to which we must defer. The one who answers to no one else.

My personal opinion is that if that is what is being communicated then “authority” might be a more fitting word than “god” here any may be generally understood much better.

 

[PRmerger]

My personal opinion is that if that is what is being communicated then “authority” might be a more fitting word than “god” here any may be generally understood much better.

I think as it applies to discussion “god” is quite appropriate.

If I understood what was meant, I’m pretty sure lots of other folks did, too.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think as it applies to discussion “god” is quite appropriate.

If I understood what was meant, I’m pretty sure lots of other folks did, too.

I’ll go along with that. One such person would be the eminent French Catholic philosopher Etienne Gilson. In 1948 in a little book titled The Terrors of the Year 2000, he wrote concerning the advent of the existentialist atheist philosophers Sartre and Camus:

“Unless we welcome the eerie invitation to suicide, our problem is to live. A half dozen intellectuals may find meaning for the absurd in the literary success they gain by it, but such justification has no value for the masses of ordinary men liberated by atheism and who, having become gods without asking for it, do not know what to do with their divinity. The latter make no pretense to save themselves, they eagerly beg to be saved. Then there appear other men who undertake to exploit atheism in their turn, and who organize the cult of the new god. It is not without a profound philosophical reason that Marxism required atheism as one of its necessary principles.”

If we define god as a force or value that is regarded as supreme, that would be for atheists the view that the universe is in the end meaningless, and so are we.

So it’s clear that atheism has a god of sorts, but a rather useless one unless this god can be used to manipulate the world into a dark place by those practiced in the art of power politics.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think as it applies to discussion “god” is quite appropriate.

If I understood what was meant, I’m pretty sure lots of other folks did, too.

My opinion that “authority” might be a more fitting word is that there are other implications/connotations that go along with the word “god” that vary from person to person. These differences might not be immediately obvious until later disagreements surface. I think the word “authority” has less of these possible additional ideas and feelings associated with it. The intent may be to invoke these ideas and feelings, I don’t know.

 

[jimmy]

That seems like an extremely fluid usage of the word “god.”

The govt isn’t literally a god, but it occupies the place of God. What happens when you remove a mans right to follow his conscience (which is exactly what would happen if you remove religion from society.). The govt trumps all and becomes the god. Atleast while there is religion in society there is something higher than govt that the govt can be judged according to, even if those in govt don’t care. There is truth.

God, family, and country are the main relationships and obligations you have in life. You remove God and the concept of family will quickly crumble. Then what you are left with is a govt with absolute power. You have no right to conscience and your family takes no precedence, atleast as far as the govt is concerned.

 

[jimmy]

My personal opinion is that if that is what is being communicated then “authority” might be a more fitting word than “god” here any may be generally understood much better.

Authority is also a very broad term. Someone can justly be considered an authority or it can be an unjust authority (ex. An oppressive one). that isn’t exactly what I mean though. I mean it much more broadly. Not only does the govt make the laws, they also have an absolute claim on you as one of its subjects. In the real world where there is religion you do have obligations that may take precedence over your obligation to the govt, so the govt can’t make an absolute claim. But you remove those obligations and things change.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Authority is also a very broad term.

Yes it is. For what I think your intended usage is a more general term that already has a more broad usage may be more fitting than using a more specific term and applying broad usage to it. But as qualified before this is just my opinion.

In the real world where there is religion you do have obligations that may take precedence over your obligation to the govt, so the govt can’t make an absolute claim.

?

Someone giving precedent to a personal obligation or something driven by their conscience can occur with or without the presence or considerations of religions. In the presence and consideration of religions a government may or may not allow certain convictions to have have precedent over those imposed by the government.

Are “religion” and “conscience” as synonymous to you?

But you remove those obligations and things change.

Well, sure. If things are made different then things change.